On 15 April 2024 Justice Lee handed down his decision in the case of Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369. This matter has attracted a large amount of media attention and for this reason alone it was interesting to watch Justice Lee read his decision via live stream on YouTube: Judgment livestreamed on YouTube. Lee J described the underlying case as having become a “cause celebre”, meaning one that attracts widespread controversy and heated public debate.
Our selection of the top stoic humorous quotes from Justice Lee
Paragraph 2 – “Indeed, given its unexpected detours and the collateral damage it has occasioned, it might be more fitting to describe it as an omnishambles”.[1]
Paragraph 8 – “… this is a credit case involving two people who are both, in different ways, unreliable historians”.[2]
Paragraph 10 – “To remark that Mr Lehrmann was a poor witness is an exercise in understatement”. – referring to Lehrmann’s credibility.
Paragraph 12 – “… trying to particularise it during the evidence was like trying to grab a column of smoke”.[3] – referring to the cover up allegation argued by Brittany Higgins.
Paragraph 152 – “But irrespective of legal obligation, there are gradations of the seriousness of untruths: an untruthful person may just be all mouth and trousers; or be recklessly indifferent to the truth or, by way of compulsion, finds it difficult to discern between what is true and untrue…”[4] – when commenting on the Hyperbolic submissions made about the credit of Mr Lehrmann.
Paragraph 155 – “When confronted by this inconsistency, his attempt to explain it away by suggesting the attraction he felt for Ms Higgins was ‘just like [the attraction] I can find [in] anybody else in this [court]room, irrespective of gender’ was as disconcerting as it was unconvincing”.[5] – referring to Lehrmann denying his attraction to Higgins.
Paragraph 158 – “Mr Lehrmann must have known that the relevant CCTV footage (Ex R42 / Ex 17A) would be examined by some with the intensity that others analyse the Zapruder film”.[6] – a reference to the famous footage of John F Kennedy allegedly being assassinated by a lone gunman.
Paragraph 200 – “As to the book, as the saying goes, an autobiography usually reveals nothing bad about its writer except his memory”.[7] – referring to Lehrmann’s submission on the “inaccuracies and inconsistencies” within the draft manuscript of Higgins’ book.
Paragraph 236 – “Having dealt with these unnecessary complications raised at the heel of the hunt, I now go back to the real point”.[8] – when referring to the Commonwealth Deed and the credit of Ms Higgins.
Paragraph 397 – “Ms Higgins seems by this stage to be ebullient, putting her hands in the air and is evidently in high spirits; although it is easy to be distracted at this point in the video by two happy middle-aged ladies re-enacting what might be a scene out of Mamma Mia in the background”.[9] – referring to the background distractions of the CCTV from The Dock.
Paragraph 422 – “Even if he was in the doghouse because he had stayed out late, I think it is safe to conclude that the process of getting into a flat he shared with his girlfriend would have been a significantly less elaborate exercise”.[10] – referring to the Lehrmann’s claim that he went back to Parliament House to retrieve his keys, despite the complicated process required to enter his office.
Paragraph 451 – “Mr Fairweather, although an experienced security guard, was not a breathalyser in human form”.[11] – referring to the security guard’s assessment of Lehrmann and Higgins.
Paragraph 462 – “Demonstrating his forensic difficulty with his representations concerning the Scottish libation, his evidence on this topic at trial was all over the shop”.[12] – referring to Mr Lehrmann’s evidence about having Whisky at the office.
Paragraph 465 – “I have already said enough to indicate that I consider Mr Lehrmann’s account to be an elaborate fancy”.[13]
Paragraph 468 – “… one assumes there would have been ways of painting this information more favourably than coming back to the office for no reason other than to luxuriate while imbibing strong liquor”.[14]
Paragraph 516 – “Intuitively, given what had been happening, one would think it likely the drinking continued given what we know about Mr Lehrmann encouraging Ms Higgins to imbibe and the rationale given by him for them both to come back to the Suite. After all, Mr Lehrmann said he was going to show Ms Higgins whisky – not Qing Dynasty ceramics”.[15] – referring to whether Lehrmann continued drinking in the ministerial suite.
Paragraph 573 – “Given he had satisfied himself, and that he knew his girlfriend was awake and was attempting to contact him, calling an Uber and getting out of the Ministerial private office with celerity (and leaving Ms Higgins undressed) is the action of a cad, but is nonetheless explicable”.[16]
Paragraph 1091 – “Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat”.[17] – referring to the Chief Justice’s declaration of a mistrial due to juror misconduct.
Links and further references
Cases
Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369
Judgment livestreamed on Youtube
Further information
This article is intended to provide a look into some of what we consider to be stoic humour in the judgement of Justice Lee. It is not complete and we consider that there are also likely to be others!
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
[1] Lee J, paragraph 2, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[2] Lee J, paragraph 8, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[3] Lee J, paragraph 12, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[4] Lee J, paragraph 152, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[5] Lee J, paragraph 155, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[6] Lee J, paragraph 158, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[7] Lee J, paragraph 200, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[8] Lee J, paragraph 236, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[9] Lee J, paragraph 397, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[10] Lee J, paragraph 422, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[11] Lee J, paragraph 451, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[12] Lee J, paragraph 462, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[13] Lee J, paragraph 465, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[14] Lee J, paragraph 468, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[15] Lee J, paragraph 516, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[16] Lee J, paragraph 573, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[17] Lee J, paragraph 1091, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
Recent insights
-
Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026
On 1 April 2026, the Australian Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and Australian Consumer Law (ACL).[1] If passed, the reform will take effect on 1 July 2027. The Bill’s amendments aim to protect consumers from manipulative…
-
Federal Budget announces tax on discretionary trusts
On 12 May 2026 the Albanese Labor Government delivered the Federal Budget. They propose to impose of a thirty (30) percent minimum tax on discretionary trusts, commencing 1 July 2028. This article addresses the proposed rate and scope and identifies what remains unclear, particularly how and when the tax will be collected based on the…
-
Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?
Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.
-
White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide
Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed. Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…
-
White Anting: serious misconduct?
White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within. White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt. White Anting has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…
-
Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute
On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor. In a 3:2 majority decision,…
-
Hylepin v Doshay: excuses for shareholder oppression?
On 19 November 2021, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia published its decision in the case of Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 201 (Hylepin v Doshay). Hylepin v Doshay was appealed from the decision in Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1370 that concerned a…
-
Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note
On 16 April 2026, the Federal Court of Australia (Court) published the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (Cth) (GenAI Practice Note).
-
ACCC publishes guidance on cash acceptance industry codes
From 1 January 2026, new cash acceptance obligations have commenced under industry codes applying to supermarkets and fuel retailers, overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). In March 2026, the ACCC published guidance on these newly enforced regulations, reminding retailers to consider their obligations before penalties apply on 1 July 2026.
